3 ms·
Warning: This being true, it can still be construed as "hacking" no matter how simple it is. Just because the barrier is easy to get over, it doesn't mean you'r
by ChrisSD 7y ago
Warning: This being true, it can still be construed as "hacking" no matter how simple it is. Just because the barrier is easy to get over, it doesn't mean you're legally allowed to enter.
This person asserted the spreadsheet was his "work product". Presumably Siemens's lawyers found this convincing enough to be wary of hacking around the password.
- zelon88 7y agoI have a different view. Considering the company employed "Person A" to create a spreadsheet, why would it be a violation to employ "Person B" to gain access to it in the absence of "Person A"? The company owns all of the technology and employs all of the personnel involved, no?
- NullPrefix 7y agoWasn't he a consultant, not an employee?
- ska 7y ago> company owns all of the technology and employs all of the personnel involved, no? No, he's a contractor. So what they own precisely should have been defined in the consulting contract. It may have been perfectly legal for him to password protect the output, much like using an obsfucator - but the time-bomb stuff is fraud any way you cut it.